Hi.He would be "in the certain cases" catagory under these circumstances.When people like that,Bundy etc serial killers, the death penalty would be appropriate.They should also be put to death ALOT sooner.Colin.<*>.

yuo - i agree with lorien - also, just because one person deserves death doesn't mean we should open up death as a possibility for everyone.

additionally, i wouldn't take confessions at face value... police have been to known to coerce confessions out of people. likewise, people have been known to take credit for crimes they didn't comitt. and in that case, killing them would really serve no point. in a way, you'd be helping them comitt suicide, if that's what they wanted, and also, the real killer would still be out there...

But let's say somebody kills their entire family of 4 (spouse and 3 kids) except them. You can say, ok, go to prison for life, but should this person live? They killed 4 people, including 3 kids that had their whole life in front of them. Is it fair for this person to live? I don't think so.

"If you want to be one of the non-conformists, all you have to do is dress just like us and listen to same music we do."

"And what happens when you repress something? It comes back all crazy and pissed off."

wouldn't cost to tax payers be a reason for the death penalty, too? i mean, killing people may not be cheap, but keeping them in prison for life isn't cheap, either, and i reckon would actually be more expensive.

also, although it's not exactly the death penality, i do support euthanasia for prisoners who have been sentanced to life.

Actually, no. In research studies (and sorry, I don't have links, but I trust my history professor) people who were executed ultimately cost the state more money (often in the millions of dollars range) than a comparable prisoner merely being held for life.

I believe a lot of that cost is incurred due to the increased use of the legal system by death row inmates.

also, although it's not exactly the death penality, i do support euthanasia for prisoners who have been sentanced to life.

Yes, but that would be their choice.

Vive le titre de deux.
In an ironic twist, the only trait I find completely appaling is intolerance.

Actually, no. In research studies (and sorry, I don't have links, but I trust my history professor) people who were executed ultimately cost the state more money (often in the millions of dollars range) than a comparable prisoner merely being held for life.

I believe a lot of that cost is incurred due to the increased use of the legal system by death row inmates.

weird. although i guess the legal thing sorta makes sense...

Yes, but that would be their choice.

true. otherwise, it wouldn't be euthanasia, heh. well, i don't think it would be

The death penalty is tricky. Its a good threat (in some cases), but it is also alot of wasted time, money, and space.

How i would handle it: abolish the death penalty. It just takes too long, with all the wongfully accused and the appeals, and all that going around. Instead, loosen laws on the shooting and possible killing of criminals. There's just too damn much red tape over shooting someone in defense, and it makes people hesitate. It shouldn't. There should be no such thing as a case where the robber gets away free, or gets away with extra cash (such as that case where robber sued the potential victims of his potential crime for having a weak roof). Police are there to help and enforce the law, but people should have the right to protect themselves and their property without fear of the law bouncing back onto him. Slightly loosen gun carrying laws, and encourage people to know how to use them for their protection. Encourage eople to plan for emergency protection of themselves, similar to having an emergency fire escape plan. Whilst this could have an adverse affect, and increase the number of potential criminals due to overconfidence in gun use abilities, it will be cut down even greater by the fact that everyone else will have equal gun use abilities, and will know how better to protect themselves.

That would save alot of lives, and kill alot of criminals. Which would give criminals less of a chance, and be much more discouraging. Which makes the crime rate go down.

Well, no, it isn't. It hasn't reduced the crime rate and, in medieval times (and possibly today), the exposure to such levels of state sponsored violence (it became a spectator sport in the past) may have actually increased the crime rate.

Vive le titre de deux.
In an ironic twist, the only trait I find completely appaling is intolerance.

Apart from the irreversibility of killing an innocent when the system fails, Tsian is right in saying that it has been proved that sometimes the death penalty becomes a incitation for more brutal crime.

To start with, as Terra kind of pointed out, a burglar, or a young guy, who by mistake kills someone, if he thinks he's going to be punished to death, suddenly finds no psicollogical barrier to keep on killing in his way to escape. Also, other cases of passional or professional (robbers) killer have shown that the fact that the criminals thought that they will be killed anyway, made them think that anything did not matter anymore and commit further excesses.

Besides, the vast majority of the people who would really deserve to be killed (serila killers and so), actually get away with it, as they are menthaly seek, and that made them irresponsible and go to a mental institution instead

High King of the Noldor in Middle-EarthHonorary Knight of the Pointy Shiney"... All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. Time to die"

Well, no, it isn't. It hasn't reduced the crime rate and, in medieval times (and possibly today), the exposure to such levels of state sponsored violence (it became a spectator sport in the past) may have actually increased the crime rate.

Which is why i said "in some cases" -- those cases where those people caught in a want to kill will reconsider. Mostly, though, it justs causes hesitation -- by people in defense and those with bad intentions.

I probably should have broken that above paragraph up I knew no-one would read it.

But, I also said loosen some of the laws in cases where people shoot others in defense or fear of their life or property, or that of anothers. Else, we all just stand waiting around for bloody cops, and let them take care of it, because our own actions start getting lots of red tap and reprimands. THe cops, while relatively "quick responding" people, just are not enough in many situations. People should be encouraged to take care of themselves, and prepare to save themselves if necessary.

While letting people "take the law into their own hands" may sound scary, it is not entirely so. SUch laws would only enable them to act, if necessary. Else they start getting into thick red tape, and encounter law enforcement, which will cuff and jail them.

The other thing you must be careful about is never to entirely slacken the laws, where dueling and killing is common. One lesson we have learned in history, is that in a bored succesful nation, where struggle is un common, duels and gladiatory fights become popular. Which only causes the criminal rate to rise, as more often than not criminals will be used here, and non-criminals put in the arena are more likely to turn criminal.

THat's just it. Abolish the death penalty, its useless, and is only there for show, or distraction. Instead, let the people take care of themselves. Encourage it. Teach them self defense. Not karate and all that, but teach them to have a defense tool at hand wherever necessary (such as home), and a plan -- again, not unlike a fire-escape plan. Not likely to be used, but you would rather have people be prepared than just fiddling around, forced to wait for law enforcement officers.

No more scary than any other emergency plan. In fact, the more scared the people get by these thoughts, the better. It will make them want to be better prepared.

Death, as it seems, should never be planned. The state has no excuse. A man defending his family, or just his home and possessions, does. Make criminals think twice, because of how you, the American people, are prepared to face them.

Roadkill wrote:The death penalty is tricky. Its a good threat (in some cases), but it is also alot of wasted time, money, and space.

How i would handle it: abolish the death penalty. It just takes too long, with all the wongfully accused and the appeals, and all that going around. Instead, loosen laws on the shooting and possible killing of criminals. There's just too damn much red tape over shooting someone in defense, and it makes people hesitate. It shouldn't. There should be no such thing as a case where the robber gets away free, or gets away with extra cash (such as that case where robber sued the potential victims of his potential crime for having a weak roof). Police are there to help and enforce the law, but people should have the right to protect themselves and their property without fear of the law bouncing back onto him. Slightly loosen gun carrying laws, and encourage people to know how to use them for their protection. Encourage eople to plan for emergency protection of themselves, similar to having an emergency fire escape plan. Whilst this could have an adverse affect, and increase the number of potential criminals due to overconfidence in gun use abilities, it will be cut down even greater by the fact that everyone else will have equal gun use abilities, and will know how better to protect themselves.

That would save alot of lives, and kill alot of criminals. Which would give criminals less of a chance, and be much more discouraging. Which makes the crime rate go down.

That's my take.

Sounds like a libertarian thing...

"If you want to be one of the non-conformists, all you have to do is dress just like us and listen to same music we do."

"And what happens when you repress something? It comes back all crazy and pissed off."